What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film is about the effects of the introduction of a new species of fish in Lake Victoria and how globalization makes sustainability a difficult choice. In the 1960s, a new species of fish, the Nile Perch, was introduced to Lake Victoria as a scientific experiment. As a predator, it ate all the native fish and multiplied exponentially. Since the fish has such a presence in Lake Victoria and because it’s so massive, it became the main export for Tanzania.
Even though Tanzania is making a good profit from exporting the fish, the denizens of Tanzania are extremely impoverished. So, even though they provide Europe with plentiful fillets of this fish, the people in Tanzania are poor and hungry. The obvious choice may be to feed the people of Tanzania with this fish, but the fish factory manager said it was too expensive. Instead, they give Europeans the prime cut of meat, and the local people the rotting carcasses of the fish.
The indigenous people live and work in appalling conditions, and there is no basic sanitation. The children’s future mainly consist drugs or prostitution, and they start on the drugs at an early age. In the best case scenario, the children become pilots in order to export the fish to European countries; however, these pilots bring back arms and munition.
In terms of AIDS, which is a big problem in Tanzania, the preacher, who everybody in the village listens to, does not encourage condom use because they believe sex before marriage is a sin. The preacher just tells the local people not to have sex before marriage and does not offer an alternative choice.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Some sustainability problems the film draws out was globalization, non-native species dominance, and the AIDS epidemic. Before these indigenous people are able to feed themselves, they export their local source of food. Additionally, they are too poor to buy other local sources of food, such as rice. So, exporting their food in return for arms and munition is inherently unsustainable and self-destructive. Also, another problem the film focuses on is the effects of introducing new species to ecosystems. The Nile Perch, the large fish that was introduced to Lake Victoria in the 1960s and is the source of commerce and essentially life for the people of Tanzania, has eaten all the fish in Lake Victoria thus destroying the biodiversity of the lake. Furthermore, since it has eaten all the other fish, it has resorted to eating its young, which by no means is sustainable. AIDS also plays a role in this film because since the men often live in the cities away from their families, they often use prostitutes who carry the HIV / AIDS virus. The preacher of village doesn’t encourage the use of condoms, and thus Tanzania is experiencing increased mortality rates. In general, the film portrays how the fish industry is an unsustainable source of food and building a way of life around it has led to an unsustainable life that is filled with chaos and other negative ramifications.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found most of the film persuasive and compelling, but probably the most compelling parts of the film was when they showed the children of Tanzania. For instance, when the children were fighting over rice, it was apparent how extreme the hunger and destitution has gotten. Also, another scene that was particularly persuasive was when two children were using drugs. It obvious that there was something wrong in the system because children could find these drugs so easily and think it was fine taking the drugs. In general, watching the scenes that focused on the children was compelling because it can be seen that these problems Tanzania have start young and the future of these children are bleak. They may wish to find futures that do not involve the Nile Perch, but the reality is that they don’t have that many options, and it’s difficult making good choices, such as using condoms, when they aren’t given the information.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not compelled by the lack of hard information. The film was set up in a such a way that the viewer had to make links and inferences on what was happening most of the time. It would have been nice if they solidly said what the arms and munition was used for. Viewers didn’t really know if they were used in Tanzania to cause problems for the citizens, or given to other parts of the country. Since this aspect of the story was more vague, it was hard to really understand what getting these arms and munition meant in relation to the Tanzanians except the idea that before they could feed themselves, they exported food and imported guns.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I think because this film does not offer any solutions to this problem, it would make me seek out ways to break this self destructive cycle or at least see what other people are doing about it.
Understanding where food comes from is a topic that has been repeatedly discussed in class. By reading nutrition labels and doing research, people can better understand what it is they are buying. Perhaps if nutrition labels are forced to say in aside to the ingredients list, where in the world the ingredients are obtained, people can make informed choices, and perhaps contribute less to these kinds of issues.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The audience that is best suited for this type of film is anyone who is unfamiliar with the situation in Tanzania and has the patience to make inferences in order to get a better understanding of the film. The film fosters independent but guided thinking. In strategic parts of the film, it states facts such as the Nile Perch is a non-native species introduced to Lake Victoria in the 1960s, but only after the viewer sees how massive the fish is and how big a part it plays in everyday life for the Tanzanians. So the film almost lets viewers have an opinion about the situation first, and then gives them a little bit more information that may guide their thinking in a different direction.
Viewers may perhaps realize that not all food is created equal, and some things such as purchasing a fillet of fish from Africa may not be as neutral a purchase as one would suspect. In general, the film did not offer any solutions, so I do not believe viewers will actually act on the environmental problems shown.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
None.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I believe if the film showed what people could do or what is being done to change the situation, it would have offered some insight for viewers in terms of thinking of possible ways to attempt to fix a situation that is complex.
Darwin's Nightmare
Title: Darwin’s NightmareDirector: Hubert Sauper
Release Year: 2004
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film is about the effects of the introduction of a new species of fish in Lake Victoria and how globalization makes sustainability a difficult choice. In the 1960s, a new species of fish, the Nile Perch, was introduced to Lake Victoria as a scientific experiment. As a predator, it ate all the native fish and multiplied exponentially. Since the fish has such a presence in Lake Victoria and because it’s so massive, it became the main export for Tanzania.
Even though Tanzania is making a good profit from exporting the fish, the denizens of Tanzania are extremely impoverished. So, even though they provide Europe with plentiful fillets of this fish, the people in Tanzania are poor and hungry. The obvious choice may be to feed the people of Tanzania with this fish, but the fish factory manager said it was too expensive. Instead, they give Europeans the prime cut of meat, and the local people the rotting carcasses of the fish.
The indigenous people live and work in appalling conditions, and there is no basic sanitation. The children’s future mainly consist drugs or prostitution, and they start on the drugs at an early age. In the best case scenario, the children become pilots in order to export the fish to European countries; however, these pilots bring back arms and munition.
In terms of AIDS, which is a big problem in Tanzania, the preacher, who everybody in the village listens to, does not encourage condom use because they believe sex before marriage is a sin. The preacher just tells the local people not to have sex before marriage and does not offer an alternative choice.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Some sustainability problems the film draws out was globalization, non-native species dominance, and the AIDS epidemic. Before these indigenous people are able to feed themselves, they export their local source of food. Additionally, they are too poor to buy other local sources of food, such as rice. So, exporting their food in return for arms and munition is inherently unsustainable and self-destructive. Also, another problem the film focuses on is the effects of introducing new species to ecosystems. The Nile Perch, the large fish that was introduced to Lake Victoria in the 1960s and is the source of commerce and essentially life for the people of Tanzania, has eaten all the fish in Lake Victoria thus destroying the biodiversity of the lake. Furthermore, since it has eaten all the other fish, it has resorted to eating its young, which by no means is sustainable. AIDS also plays a role in this film because since the men often live in the cities away from their families, they often use prostitutes who carry the HIV / AIDS virus. The preacher of village doesn’t encourage the use of condoms, and thus Tanzania is experiencing increased mortality rates. In general, the film portrays how the fish industry is an unsustainable source of food and building a way of life around it has led to an unsustainable life that is filled with chaos and other negative ramifications.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found most of the film persuasive and compelling, but probably the most compelling parts of the film was when they showed the children of Tanzania. For instance, when the children were fighting over rice, it was apparent how extreme the hunger and destitution has gotten. Also, another scene that was particularly persuasive was when two children were using drugs. It obvious that there was something wrong in the system because children could find these drugs so easily and think it was fine taking the drugs. In general, watching the scenes that focused on the children was compelling because it can be seen that these problems Tanzania have start young and the future of these children are bleak. They may wish to find futures that do not involve the Nile Perch, but the reality is that they don’t have that many options, and it’s difficult making good choices, such as using condoms, when they aren’t given the information.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not compelled by the lack of hard information. The film was set up in a such a way that the viewer had to make links and inferences on what was happening most of the time. It would have been nice if they solidly said what the arms and munition was used for. Viewers didn’t really know if they were used in Tanzania to cause problems for the citizens, or given to other parts of the country. Since this aspect of the story was more vague, it was hard to really understand what getting these arms and munition meant in relation to the Tanzanians except the idea that before they could feed themselves, they exported food and imported guns.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I think because this film does not offer any solutions to this problem, it would make me seek out ways to break this self destructive cycle or at least see what other people are doing about it.
Understanding where food comes from is a topic that has been repeatedly discussed in class. By reading nutrition labels and doing research, people can better understand what it is they are buying. Perhaps if nutrition labels are forced to say in aside to the ingredients list, where in the world the ingredients are obtained, people can make informed choices, and perhaps contribute less to these kinds of issues.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The audience that is best suited for this type of film is anyone who is unfamiliar with the situation in Tanzania and has the patience to make inferences in order to get a better understanding of the film. The film fosters independent but guided thinking. In strategic parts of the film, it states facts such as the Nile Perch is a non-native species introduced to Lake Victoria in the 1960s, but only after the viewer sees how massive the fish is and how big a part it plays in everyday life for the Tanzanians. So the film almost lets viewers have an opinion about the situation first, and then gives them a little bit more information that may guide their thinking in a different direction.
Viewers may perhaps realize that not all food is created equal, and some things such as purchasing a fillet of fish from Africa may not be as neutral a purchase as one would suspect. In general, the film did not offer any solutions, so I do not believe viewers will actually act on the environmental problems shown.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
None.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I believe if the film showed what people could do or what is being done to change the situation, it would have offered some insight for viewers in terms of thinking of possible ways to attempt to fix a situation that is complex.